On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:26:08 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
If there's a sitaution where notable things are
*not* being included
because of our guidelines, it's a problem on our end and not on the
outside. One size fits all simply doesn't work.
For what value of notable? If "notable" means it's been the primary
subject of a few reliable secondary sources, which seems like a
reasonable definition, then that should not happen. I've said before,
I'm all for a contextual definition of reliable.
If it means copying the latest "noise and fury signifying nothing"
from teh internets, then no, I don't think it's broken at all. We
don't *actually* need an article on Limecat in order to be a credible
encyclopaedia :-)
The problem is that the entire process is polluted by crap like
longcat, limecat, Brian Peppers, and determined efforts by fans of
each and every anime, cartoon series, reality show, to have an article
on every single tiny facet of every single episode of the object of
their obsession.
It is very hard to pull out the god ones from the endless torrent of
crap. And the judgment of good is in any case not objective, since
you like things that I don't and - I am sure - vice versa. Maybe you
think we can do without an article on every single baroque composer.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG